Brendan Carr Speaks Out On Jimmy Kimmel, The Media And Trump

Until recently, the Federal Communications Commission was not an agency that many Americans typically spent much time thinking about. That’s changed in President Donald Trump’s second term under FCC Chair Brendan Carr.

A telecom lawyer by trade who has risen up the ranks of the agency over the years, Carr has developed a strong relationship with Trump and gleefully taken on the president’s enemies in the media in a bid to bring them to heel.

While touring his office after our interview for The Conversation, Carr showed me a mug on his desk with an image depicting him as Trump’s pit bull taking on the media.

Carr’s persistent threats to pull broadcasters’ licenses, his spats with Jimmy Kimmel and The View, and his overall aggressive posture has raised alarm in the press and on both sides of the aisle. Even conservative Republicans have expressed concerns about the precedent that Carr is setting and the potential chilling effects on speech. But Carr doesn’t see it that way.

“It’s not our role to be the speech police,” he said. “It’s not our role to fundamentally transform editorial decisions, but there is a baseline level of regulation that Congress wanted. I think that is our job.”

Carr also refused to say it would be inappropriate for Trump to direct the FCC to investigate certain broadcasters or that there should be any limits on Trump using the FCC against media companies he doesn’t like.

“The president has every right in the world,” he said, “to push back on media.”

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Listen here for the full conversation.

Republicans, yourself very much included, have historically stood for deregulation and limited government intervention, especially when it comes to speech. But the FCC is now playing a much more active role when it comes to broadcasters, news and editorial decisions. How do you square that?

The way I think about it is it’s really a blend of two different strains of approaches to this job. On the one hand, we do have a very aggressive, what you would describe as a traditional, deregulatory agenda. We have an entire proceeding called “Delete, Delete, Delete.” We’ve deleted over 2000 regulations from the FCC’s books at this point.

At the same time, we are appropriately adopting regulations, and you see that most notably in the media policy sector. I think that does reflect a broader debate perhaps on the conservative side.

Historically, you saw a lot of conservatives, Republicans when they got gavels — whether it was at this agency, other agencies, or in Congress — and they would sort of take the gavel and they would fly to the farthest flung corners of the country. They would bury the gavel in the sand, and they’d say we can’t legislate or we can’t regulate because one day Democrats will be back and they’ll do it and so we have to do nothing. And if you look at the history, here at the FCC in particular, during the Biden years, the FCC very much was, in my view, weaponized, and the gavel was used very aggressively in a lot of ways that weren’t covered by traditional media. And so my view is not to take the gavel and weaponize it, but also not to take the gavel and bury it in the sand. We should be appropriately applying and enforcing the laws that Congress passed.

Back in 2018, you testified before Congress, and you said the First Amendment operates as a restraint on the government and that your job as FCC commissioner was to avoid putting a thumb on the scale in favor of one speaker or the other. Has your understanding of the FCC’s role changed in that regard?

No, not at all. When you think about the First Amendment analysis, I think it’s important to think about the broadcast sector as opposed to any other forms of media distribution, whether it’s cable or podcasts or social media or someone’s soapbox. Broadcast is different because you have a license from the government and you're required to operate in the public interest. So you get the license. You get to operate on the spectrum for free, but the spectrum is a public resource.

Think about it this way. Think about having a public park, and ordinarily the government allows someone to use the public park for a political demonstration. You can use it for an hour or two. There’s very little restraints the government can put on you. But let’s say the government gives you access to that park exclusively for seven years, and anyone else that wants to make a demonstration or parade is kicked out by the government. That’s much more akin to what we have in the broadcast space.

The model that Congress adopted is what we call public trustee. So you're not just standing in your own shoes, you're supposed to be accounting for and looking out for the broader public interest, including the view of people that were denied a right to the license.

In 2019, you posted on X that the FCC doesn’t have “a roving mandate to police speech in the name of public interest.” Since becoming chair, you’ve taken a pretty aggressive posture to enforcing that public interest mandate. What changed?

Well, I don’t remember the exact context of it, but to the extent that’s coming up in the context of social media, which is where we saw a lot of this sort of surge in government intervention, this surge in censorship, that statement is entirely clear. But the First Amendment always sits next to the public interest standard uniquely in the context of the broadcast area.

For broadcasts, do you agree with what you said, which is that a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the public interest is not something that the FCC has a right to do?

I don’t view the FCC as the speech police, and I don’t view that’s what we’re doing. In fact, this has been litigated to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has said that enforcing public interest obligations on broadcasters, and there’s a whole series of them, is not censorship and does not run afoul of the First Amendment.

But since the public interest definition is so vague, do you worry that even if just optically, it puts you in the position of seeming like you are censoring free speech?

Well, I don’t think it’s vague as applied to broadcasters who deal with this every day. For instance, there’s very specific manifestations of it, which is there is a political equal time rule. It’s both statutory but I think also part of the broader public interest standard, and so I think when you enforce those regulations, it’s actually pretty clear.

Now, historically, I do think there’s been weaponization at the FCC. If you go back to the Biden years, for instance, there was a local Fox broadcast TV station in Philadelphia that wanted to have their license renewed. And there was a petition to deny it by activists because they were concerned with content that was on Fox News cable, again, which is not regulated in the same way. And the Biden FCC entertained the idea, put it out for comment, and kept it out there all the way through the election.

So how is what you’re doing with the threats to pull licenses different than that?

What we’re doing is reminding broadcasters of their public interest obligations, and I’ll give you some specifics.

The FCC historically has had a political equal opportunity regulation, and that says if you're a broadcaster and you choose to have one political candidate on, then the statute says you have to provide comparable time and placement to all other legally qualified candidates. And we have a proceeding right now on The View, which has had historically one political candidate on and hasn’t offered comparable time and placement.

You’ve opened investigations into 60 Minutes and NBC over alleged favoritism towards Kamala Harris in ’24. You’ve warned ABC affiliates of possible punishment for airing Jimmy Kimmel’s show before opening the door to taking away Disney’s broadcasting licenses and wielded the agency’s long unused equal time rules to successfully deter both The Late Show and The View from airing interviews with Democratic political candidates. When people take it all together, how do you defend against the perception that you’re using the FCC’s regulatory power to suppress speech that’s critical of President Trump and punish his political adversaries?

Well, again, I think the through line through all of that goes back to the main policy North Star that we have, which is this broader debate in the broadcast sector between those national programmers on the one hand and the thousands of individual TV stations.

But no other FCC chair has done that, and then you have a president come in who’s angry with certain news programs, who’s angry with the coverage of him, and then suddenly there’s this much more aggressive posture from the FCC. How do you explain that to the public?

I agree that we’re moving more aggressively, but we’re doing it all across the board. There is a unique focus, and I get it, on media, but you can see what we’re doing in the space economy where we’re fundamentally transforming it. You can see where we’re going after robocallers using really interesting new tools. You can look at it in national security where we’re doing things that the FCC has never done before.

The FCC order initiating the early license renewal of Disney ABC-owned stations, that came one day after President Trump called for ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel. Can you really say that was just a coincidence?

Yeah, that timing was entirely distinct from that.

Brendan!

Yeah. No, with the Disney case in particular, we had started a DEI investigation into Disney all the way back in March of 2025.

OK, but did you talk to the president beforehand?

We had been going through rounds of discovery and our versions of subpoena with Disney, and frankly, the view here within the agency was that Disney was being nonresponsive. Their responses were deficient, that they were being disingenuous and we had been telling them for weeks and months that if they didn’t start producing in that discovery process responsive information, that we were going to go to the next step, which was to call their license in for early renewal.

So the idea of bringing their license in for early renewal did not spring from any specific episode, and the timing of it was driven based on where we were in the discovery process. And it wasn’t the first one that we did.

Did you get a call or talk to the president either before or after you made that announcement?

Look, as a general rule, we don’t get into sort of any discussions that happen with the White House or don’t happen with the White House. But on this one, we’ve been very clear. The process here was put in place. Our decision to move forward was based on where we were in discovery with Disney.

I think it’s important to talk about what that Disney case is about. The Disney case is about evidence coming to light — and we haven't made a final decision yet — that they had been discriminating inside the company based on race and gender in terms of hiring, promoting, compensation, workplace opportunities. If that all ends up being true based on all the evidence that Disney gets to put in, that’s a very concerning development, and it does raise fundamental questions about fitness to have a license. That has nothing to do with a program.

When do you think you’re going to make that decision? Before the fall?

Where we are with Disney right now is based on that investigation, we’ve called their licenses in for early renewal. A number of petitions to deny were filed. When you file to renew your license, you have to demonstrate that you’ve been operating in the public interest for the last several years. Petitions to deny have been filed. Disney will have a chance to file responses to those petitions to deny. There will then be a reply/comment period. And then it’ll be teed up for FCC action, and we’ll figure that out based on the record. And we haven't made a final decision on what we’re going to do.

Do you think that the president should be able to direct the FCC to investigate a broadcaster? Trump calls you and says, “Hey check on what ABC is doing,” is that appropriate, and would you then go decide to check on what ABC is doing?

Whenever we make a decision at the FCC, we have to explain the basis for it: what’s the record evidence, what’s the law say, what’s the facts say. If it’s not grounded in those things, there’s bases that people can appeal and overturn it, so all of our decisions are going to ultimately be driven by the facts and the record before us.

Look, there’s no question that I’m broadly aligned with President Trump. President Trump tapped me to lead the agency.

Given that he calls people at 2:00 a.m., given how communicative he is with the members of his team that he’s close to, does that happen?

Well, again, just as a general matter, I don’t speak publicly about conversations with the White House or whether they happen or don’t happen.

You know that can sound dodgy.

I mean, maybe, but that’s sort of the consistent position that we’ve had.

Do you think that the president’s ability to use the agency’s licensing enforcement against media organizations he dislikes should be limited?

There’s a lot of points tucked into that question that I don’t necessarily agree with.

My view is pretty straightforward, which is that broadcasters have to operate in the public interest. And licenses themselves are not sacred cows. I think people have sort of taken this mindset that broadcast is like a newspaper, is like a podcast. It’s on a fundamental different regulatory footing, and what I’ve tried to be clear with people is that broadcast licenses aren’t sacred cows. There are things you can do to lose broadcast licenses, and if necessary, that’s the path that we’ll head down.

I’m curious what you disagreed with in that question. To me, it’s pretty simple: Should there be a limit on how much the president can use the FCC against media companies he doesn’t like?

I think the president has every right in the world, including a First Amendment right, to express his views, to push back on media. I think you see him do that all the time. He’s incredibly transparent. He’s incredibly direct.

But can he use the FCC to punish them?

Well, again, the FCC, our job is to enforce the Communications Act, and that’s what we do across the board. We do it in broadcast. We do it in space economy. We do it in national security.

Can you decide how and when to do it and how to prioritize it, and should the president be directing that?

Well, again, every decision we make is going to be based on the fact and the record and the law, and for commission decisions, it’s a product of a vote of three different people.

You said ABC’s decision not to broadcast President Trump’s recent election integrity speech live would come up in the review. I wonder what makes a network’s decision about a presidential address relevant to whether local stations should retain their licenses.

Well, what we said is that the decision by broadcasters to carry or not carry the speech is something that is likely to be raised by petitioners that are seeking to have the FCC not renew the license for the Disney ABC stations that are before us. So that pleading has been filed. We’ll take a look at it.

We have, also, ourselves. We are looking into this question itself about the decision to air programming or not. And again, I think this goes back to the dynamic between the national programmers and local TV because the entire idea of broadcast was that you wanted local TV stations to push back on the national programmers and have some give and take. We have rules that regulate what we call preemption. So if a national programmer wants to run a particular show, or doesn’t want to run particular programming, the local TV station has the right to preempt and to push back and make a different decision. And so all of these decisions ultimately go to what we’re called upon to do by the Communications Act, which is to assess whether they have been operating in the public interest or not.

But I think if you step back, you talk about President Trump. I think one of the things that President Trump has done so well is that he has run directly at the legacy news media. I think so many people that run for office, they feel constrained to govern based on the narrative that the traditional mainstream media has set. And that’s one of the things that’s set President Trump apart is he called out the fake news media.

As FCC chair, is it your job to reorient the editorial standards and decisions of the news media?

Well, I think it’s something that the news media should want to do on its own, and at the same time, I think it is our job to enforce the rules that are on the books. So for instance, if the national programmers are just running over all the local TV stations, they’re not actually finding what the local community wants to hear.

I think, fundamentally, the legacy media should want to do a course correction.

But is it your job to make them course correct?

Well, I think they should want to, and I think our job is to enforce the regulatory framework. We haven’t done that over the last 20 years, and I don’t think it’s produced helpful results.

But it sounds like you're saying you want to, in whatever way you can, push the editorial of news media in a different direction.

Well, when it comes to broadcast. I mean, newspapers and cable are different, so we don’t have a regulatory framework. But with broadcasters, we do want to remind them that it’s not a podcast, you know? There are rules and regulations you have to follow. There is a public interest standard so there’s the equal opportunities rule, there’s the prohibition on news distortions, there’s regulations that go to broadcast hoax, and we think they should try to abide by those.

You’ve acknowledged that the FCC doesn’t regulate cable news content, but then why are you commenting on CNN’s coverage if it’s not in your purview?

Well, again, I think as a general matter, I think it’s important for the country that we do have trusted news outlets, and I don’t think that we’re there now.

I think we have a role to play. It’s not our role to be the speech police. It’s not our role to fundamentally transform editorial decisions, but there is a baseline level of regulation that Congress wanted. I think that is our job.

But there are a lot of folks that do see you as the speech police, and that even includes some Republicans. Ted Cruz said that of you, and he, in fact, said that one of your warnings sounded like a scene from Goodfellas. He called you a mafioso. He’s the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. What do you think Ted Cruz is missing about your approach here?

Well, I think that related to a sentence that I had used talking broadly about the Jimmy Kimmel show.

Do you remember what you said?

I do, yeah. And I think we’ve testified about this. We’ve explained it. We’ve gone on at length about it. And again, what we’re talking about there is that broader dynamic that we’re saying about trying to change the relationship between the programmers on the one hand and the local TV stations on the other.

So where does the mafioso come in?

I don’t know. That wasn’t my line.

You do have on your desk a mug with you as Trump’s media pit bull that you drink out of, right?

That’s true, yes.

Is there a part of you that sort of relishes the Grim Reaper-esque reputation that you’ve gotten?

I don’t know about that. Look, you just can’t take it too seriously.

The news cycles are going to go up. The news cycles are going to go down. You're going to be villainized. People are going to like other stuff that you're doing. And you just have to feel very confident in the decisions you're making.

What would you say if a future Democratic FCC chair used the same theories and powers to investigate editorial decisions made by Sinclair or applied pressure on conservative talk show programs?

Well, again, what we’re doing is applying the law in an even-handed manner. I think if you look at past FCCs under Democrat control, we saw weaponization. We are going to see weaponization by Democrats again at the FCC. Are they going to blame me? Maybe. But again, the question for us right now is should we do nothing knowing that Democrats will weaponize it, or should we take the gavel and apply the law as we think Congress passed it? And that’s the decision that we’re making.

Why haven't you looked at conservative radio or Sinclair or any of these others?

If there’s any issue with any of them, then we will. We’re happy to.

Let me pull back. Do you want to live in a country where federal bureaucrats monitor comedy shows for their political content, where the government can put TV licenses at risk over jokes or guests or editorial decisions that it doesn’t like? Are you comfortable with that scenario, whoever is sitting in the chair?

Well, I don’t agree with the framing. I think holding broadcasters accountable to the public interest is a fundamentally different thing than the framing of your question. I think holding broadcasters to public interest is something that we should do.

Do you worry at all that with your media pit bull approach, even without the technical enforcement measures, will have a chilling effect?

I don’t. I don’t think that complying with the public interest standard in broadcast — again, broadcast is unique. It has nothing to do with cable or podcasts.

Given we have streaming, cable, social media — so many Americans get their news on TikTok — do you think that the FCC has seen technology outpace some of its mission?

It’s an interesting question. A lot of focus now is obviously on AI, which the FCC has a small role in, not a big one. A lot of the conversation obviously has moved to social media, which I know you understand this, is not broadcast and doesn’t have the public interest obligations. You don’t have any of the rules or regulations that we’re applying.

I’m not scared of the clip we’re going to post.

Exactly. There’s no role for the FCC there at all.

Look, there is a world of the future of communication where it is all we call virtual cable like YouTube TV, where it is all social media, where it is all over the internet. And there’s a world in which all this regulatory structure that is applying to the broadcast space becomes largely irrelevant because the conversation and the investments have shifted away from broadcast. That’s entirely possible. But until then, we have that regulatory structure to impose.

You’ve been at the FCC for a long time. This does seem to be a new era of Brendan Carr. Do you feel like you have transformed under Trump? Because there are a lot of people that have known you…

I do get this. I do get variations of this question.

…for a long time.

Where did things go so wrong?

What happened? What happened to Brendan Carr?

And you’re like, “What is the origin story?”

I think it’s this blend of two different approaches. We do have this very traditional, almost libertarian-style deregulation. We’re getting rid of hundreds of pages from the federal regulation. I also think there’s a place appropriately for regulations, and I think it’s a broader reflection of where I think the conservative movement has gone.

Yeah, there’s still this very big deregulatory effort. There’s also this more populist approach that’s skeptical of concentrations of power and supports common sense regulations. And what we’ve been trying to do is you take a little bit of dereg, a little bit of reg, you put it together, and we make telecom great again.